I almost completely wrote off Mad Max: Fury Road when I initially heard about it. I had added it to the long list of films coming out that are either sequels, reboots or sequel-reboots (requels? seboots?) of 80s and 90s franchises and, given it was based upon a franchise I had very little experience with, I wasn’t terribly excited. I only saw bits of the original films as a child, and Fury Road looked like a lot of crazy car chase action scenes with a heavy focus on the cars rather than the actual action, and that kind of vibe is what has put me off seeing films like the Fast & Furious. I don’t know, but I’ve never been much of a rev-head so that whole “driving cars fast = excitement” mentality has never really appealed to me.

But I will eat my proverbial hat. You have never seen car chases like the ones in Mad Max: Fury Road, and it is one of the better action films I have seen in recent years.

Now Showing this week is Mad Max: Fury Road, directed by George Miller. Following a nuclear war, the world is left barren and desolate, with what is left of mankind struggling for oil and water. A nomad named Max (Tom Hardy), haunted by visions of his deceased daughter, is captured by the army of a tyrannical dictator named Immorten Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne) and used as a universal blood donor for his soldiers. But Max’s confinement is short lived, for the army is soon called to arms in order to pursue Immorten Joe’s chief lieutenant, Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), who has secretly liberated his prize breeding women. Caught in the middle of the pursuit, Max must decide whether he can abandon the liberated women to Immorten’s mercy or help them find freedom in the wasteland the world has become.

A vocal minority has been stirring up discussion as to if Fury Road should be considered “feminist propaganda”, and I want to quickly address that discussion right here. I would disagree with that notion, because the term “propaganda” implies the film is a tool to further an agenda and omits information to influence people’s minds. This film is nothing of the sort, but what it is is a good film with a strong cast of characters, regardless of their gender, which is really what all good storytelling strives to be.

The female characters are not weak or stereotyped as they are in a majority of action films. They are a product of the environment the film is set in. The only agenda they can possibly be serving is that sex slavery at the hands of a corrupt, greedy dictator is bad and that women are not property for anyone to own. And that isn’t even an agenda, that is just fact. If you disagree with a film expressing that view, then I can’t help you.

Anyway, enough of that, let’s talk about the actual film.

The first thing that struck me about Fury Road is how incredibly unique it looks. The madness stated in the title extends far beyond Max himself but into the architecture and design of the world around him. The film’s many vehicles are made from trucks and muscle cars, decked out with spikes, giant snatch poles and one featuring tons of amplifiers and a lunatic playing a fire spitting electric guitar. Immorten Joe’s army of War Boys look like albino ravers; Immorten himself like a death-metal inspired Darth Vader. Director George Miller’s psychotic vision of this apocalyptic future is amazing to behold and really must be seen to be believed.

I say that because a majority of the film’s crazy vehicles and action sequences involving them were done live on set. Don’t believe me? See for yourself. I didn’t believe it at first either, and that is a testament to how balls-out bonkers Fury Road‘s action sequences are: so bonkers that I couldn’t fathom that it was possible without CGI.

It’s one thing for an action movie to have ridiculously awesome action scenes, but the truly brilliant ones have a great narrative and characters to back it up. Fury Road‘s story is simple but effective, choosing not to over complicate itself with a history of the wasteland and just having the simple goal of getting the former brides to safety. None of the characters are terribly developed in the conventional sense, moreover they have clear motivations that are expressed in more nuanced ways. Max himself has very little dialogue, making him almost a side character in favour of Imperator Furiosa and her mission. I wouldn’t expect Fury Road to go down in history as having the deepest characters in an action movie, but it certainly clears the bar that a majority of action films seem indifferent to want to reach.

For the most part, the acting is top notch, particularly from Theron’s Furiosa, Nicholas Hoult’s Nux and the more conflicted brides. My only huge issue was that I felt Tom Hardy as Max seemed a little off sometimes, particularly when he spoke. His accent was amazing for the intense narration in the opening, but in normal dialogue it just sounded funny sometimes. Coupled with his uncomfortable-wide-eyes expression, he just came across as a bit silly which doesn’t quite suit the “road warrior” persona.

Mad Max: Fury Road is the kind of action movie you won’t have seen for a long time. Though it is far from perfect, the sheer scale and spectacle of the action coupled with a strong narrative and cast of characters make it one of the better action films to have been released in recent years. And it is another great example of a film that you must see on the big screen, because seeing those cars flip and hearing their engines roar just won’t be the same in your living room, no matter how much you’ve spent on a home theatre system. Definitely check it out.

I have always been a proponent of the concept “less is more” when it comes to horror films. For me, the horror films with the least amount of violence, no proper glimpses of the monster and that build up tension through the fear of danger are the ones that get under my skin. A great example of this I can think of was 2013’s The Conjuring (particularly this scene, if you dare watch it), which primarily hid the spirits and never actually harmed anyone until its climactic scenes.

But, like most cinematic rules, they can be broken and be equally as effective; and the indie horror film It Follows showed me one can defy my “barely glimpse the monster” rule and get so far under my skin that I feel it ought to have bought me dinner first.

Now Showing this week is It Follows, written and directed by David Robert Mitchell. After a night of back-seat-of-car sex with her new boyfriend Hugh, teenager Jay Height (Maika Monroe) discovers their relationship was all a ruse so he could pass on the curse of being hunted by some unknown entity. Hugh tells Jay that “It” will follow her, no matter where she is, and it will appear to be a person. It could be a stranger, it could be a friend, but it is always walking in her direction and it will not stop until it catches her. The only advice Hugh can give is to quickly pass it on to someone else, because if “It” kills her, it will go back up the chain and come after him.

I’m going to come out and say it, It Follows is one of the best horror films I have seen in a good long time. I have not felt so terrified in ages; that kind of terror where your heart is leaping out of your chest and your fingers reflexively dig into your thighs until you’re certain you’ve drawn blood. It Follows doesn’t rely on jump-scare terror (although there are some in there, because it is a horror film after all), but more frightens you by making you want to run. I know the story idea may sound a little silly/urban-legendy on paper, but in practice, once combined with some excellent filmmaking techniques, it is nightmarishly terrifying.

Actually, that is the best way I can think of to describe why It Follows was so effective: it is almost structured like a nightmare. Scenes take place in familiar areas, at school, home, the local pool etc. And as “It” is completely unrelenting in its travels. No matter where the characters run to or what time of day it is, you never once feel comfortable because at any moment it could arrive. And when it does, the various people it takes the form of move with such a automaton-like focus, with a vacant yet ominous stare, that will make your skin crawl (one instance where “It” was an old woman will forever be seared into my brain!).

Again, “less is more”. The monster is nothing but a person walking, but It Follows gives us a reason to fear it. Simple and very effective.

Context and performance aspects are one thing, but director David Robert Mitchell implemented some excellent cinematic tricks to further raise the tension. Rather than adhering to the rule of thirds (here’s a rather phallic example), Mitchell opted to shoot a lot of moments from a semi-character perspective, framing “It” in the centre of the image, creating the feeling that it is coming for you in the theatre. I won’t deny I instinctively lent back in my chair several times! The other great technological element was the soundtrack. Composed by “Disasterpeace”, the soundtrack was comprised of heavy 80s synth, and at almost too high a volume which lead to a feeling of pressure and adrenaline.

Narratively the film does pretty well, dealing with some interesting themes all of which centre around sex. We know sex is a huge part of the horror genre, but mainly in them having sex appeal before everyone gets disembowelled. It Follows, on the other hand, works sex into its monster with it essentially being a sexually transmitted disease and manifesting occasionally as people in some state of undress. The film also deals with the issue of “slut shaming” through a side character having a crush on Jay, and knowing her sleeping with other men got her into this mess/might get her out of it. These elements are shown rather than told, which makes the characters come across as very bleak yet genuine in a weird sort of way. Not the most in depth characters I’ve ever seen, but higher up than most other horror films.

Bottom line, It Follows is one hell of an experience. The climax was a little weak compared to the lead up to it, but it still had enough tension in it for me to enjoy it all the same. Casual fans of the odd scary film might have a hard time with it (like I said it is unrelenting in its terror) but if you love the feeling of inescapable dread and yearn for a fresh take on the genre then look no further.

The film is only in a limited release at the moment, so get on it quickly!

When I wrote on the first Avengersall those years ago, I rambled in a giddy haze of how amazing it was simply because it didn’t fall apart. Actually having several, high profile superheroes as the protagonists, having them not drown each other out by vying for more screen time and for having an excellent script. Avengers was great for the simple fact it didn’t mess itself up!

But here we are, round two, and superhero team up stories are no longer a new thing. Was the first time a fluke?

Word to the wise: contains brief plot details for both Ultron and some previous Marvel films

Now Showing this week is Avengers: Age of Ultron, directed by Joss Whedon. Following the collapse of S.H.I.E.L.D in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, the Avengers have been hunting the remaining pockets of HYDRA forces to try and locate Loki’s sceptre. Upon retrieving it in an explosive opening battle, Tony Stark/Iron Man and Bruce Banner/Hulk discover that the blue gem inside the sceptre appears to resemble an artificial brain, much like Stark’s JARVIS program only much more advanced. Stark sees this discovery as the perfect opportunity to launch his “Ultron” experiment, in which his automated Iron Man suits would be run by an artificial intelligence with the base prerogative to “protect the world”. But after installing the gemstone’s AI, the team soon realise that it is not the peacekeeper they intended and rather sees the only path to peace on Earth is humanity’s extinction.

The first thing that struck me about Age of Ultron is that we can no longer watch the Marvel movies as individual films for the Marvel Cinematic Universe has become far too large. It’s now more like a TV show, only each episode is feature length and comes out every six-ish months. (And I thought the wait for Game of Thrones was bad!). The reason I say that is because Ultron makes little effort to catch you up on anything you may not have seen if you missed one of the films, nor does it introduce you to the characters should this be your first MCU experience (as silly as that would be, I’m sure it’s happening). I know this sounds like a no-brainer, we are talking about a sequel in a series of films here, but I feel it’s relevant because all the films strengths come from all this context leading up to it, which it could not possibly give on its own.

Much like the original, Age of Ultron successfully maintains a balance among its core cast of characters. They all bond and clash in believable ways, they each have depth to them through actions both great and small and this is all due to the many films worth of development that has come before them. We all know who they are, what their roles are, and it allows Age of Ultron to drive them forward starting at their complexities without wasting time on introductions.

Character development in a project like this, with pre-established films you had no hand in, is due to Joss Whedon’s excellent dialogue writing skills. He weaves darkness and witticisms together with ease to formulate hearty banter and serious discussion. He takes the well-established characters in directions I would never have expected, particularly in a sub-plot involving Hulk and Black Widow that I was quite fond of, and that’s exactly what makes him great.

As for the new characters featuring in Age of Ultron, they were fine but could have been better. Without going into spoiler territory, newcomer twins Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch were interesting additions but ones I didn’t find particularly necessary, coming across more as a means of introducing more characters to the MCU without having to finance another standalone film. Perhaps they will become more interesting or bigger players in future movies, but for now I wasn’t wowed.

As for Ultron himself, he certainly commanded presence. Voiced by James Spader, Ultron was ominous, clever, funny and extremely formidable; all things you want to see in a villain. If I had to pick out a problem I had with him, it was that the film seemed to go with the angle that he was simply born evil, that he was doomed to villainy from the start, which I think missed a great opportunity to explore the cold, AI logic approach to peace on Earth. To see him be neutral and to learn of all humanity’s failings, and to make the logical decision of eradicating us all would have made for a more powerful villain, a more poignant form of “doomed from the start”.

Age of Ultron is nothing short of entertaining, and goes to show that the first film was not a fluke. I have been asked by many as to whether it is as good as the original, and I would say that it is but just for different reasons. Avengers was great for merely coming together well, Age of Ultron on the other hand kept what originally worked and further pushed the character focus to bring out better internal/external conflicts, a cooler villain and just as awesome action. While Age of Ultron may not end with any sense of finality, it sets up interesting prospects for the films to come (though the Phase 3 announcements spoils that a little already).

So yeah, check it out, it’s pretty awesome. Although I still maintain that Hawkeye would in no way be able to fight alongside the rest of them and survive. Man, that guy is useless.

After the chaos of the Oscars last month, there were two films I missed out on actually writing up: Boyhood and Whiplash. So before I get started, I wanted to quickly address these two films. On Boyhood: while the impressive undertaking of filming the same cast across 12 years gave a sense of genuineness to the narrative, boring mundane life is still boring mundane life and if it weren’t for its unique filming practice no one would care. Whiplash, on the other hand, was a fantastic edge-of-your-seat thriller featuring nothing but jazz eisteddfods. Seriously, wow.

Anyhow, let’s get on to Fifty Shades of Grey. There’s something I never thought I’d say…

Now Showing this week is Fifty Shades of Grey, directed by Sam Taylor-Johnson and based on the novel of the same name. Literature student Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson) has found herself between a rock and a hard place (ZING) after entering into a relationship with sexually deviant billionaire Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan). Christian’s kinky, dominating tendencies may prove to be too much for Anastasia as she struggles with entering into a binding, life changing contract with a man she has known for pretty much all of two seconds. And… yeah, that’s about it.

I’m going to come right out and say it: Fifty Shades of Grey is terrible, but, on the up side, it is hilariously terrible. Given it is a film that is all about making excuses for sex things to happen, that was hardly a surprise. Its lead characters are so shallow that they are essentially defined by sex. Dakota Johnson’s Anastasia is a walking clitoris, shaking with orgasmic pleasure at even the slightest touch to her cheek; while Jamie Dornan’s Christian has all the charisma of his abs, his every stance can be summarised as “I am sex-man”. They have absolutely no chemistry, constantly contradict their own character traits and unrealistically settle would be arguments so fast because they realise they need to get back to shagging. All of their dialogue together is crammed full (SWISH) of cringe worthy innuendos and half-arsed attempts at actual conflict to the point where it isn’t even dialogue any more, it’s filler. But it’s unashamedly filler and it brought tears of laughter to my eyes.

Now, I know a majority of the BDSM community are offended by this film’s portrayal of their sexuality and, to be honest, I can see why despite my admittedly limited knowledge of the culture. Both through Anastasia’s perspective and Christian’s very slight attempt at a back-story, his sexuality is treated like a mental illness. Anastasia is constantly asking “why must you be like this,” “why can’t you just be a normal person,” like someone ignorantly berating a person with depression. And on Christian’s side of things: his desires stem from being sexually abused as a minor, as well as those desires going well beyond the point of consent on some occasions. That’s not BDSM, that’s abuse. And for a film touting itself as a steamy, erotic, make-all-the-couples-go-home-and-Steele-their-Greys kind of film, that’s not really OK.

Those aspects of the film don’t really start to emerge until the latter quarter, where the film takes a huge downturn in the hilarity department and ends as unsatisfyingly as the post-film-sex must have for most of the movie-goers. Before that though, it’s all sunshine and dick jokes.

Fifty Shades of Grey toes the line of being-so-bad-it’s-good and only occasionally lands on the side of no-this-is-bad. If the film isn’t making you laugh at terribly unsubtle symbolism or shocking dialogue, you’re shocked wondering how anyone could find a naive woman in way over her head in an abusive relationship sexy. Nothing about it makes it a good film, but I sure had a good time watching it.

And so we have the last of the Best Picture films based upon true events. We made it! OK, I know I’ve been picking on these movies quite a bit, but I’ll be honest and say that all the previousfew “true story” movies have been pretty good. Well, not ALL, but most. I complain about it, but history does have some fantastic stories to tell and often they are stories we, as a society, need to hear as a means to better ourselves.

Enter Selma.

Now Showing this week is Selma, directed by Ava DuVernay. Beginning with Martin Luther King, Jr. (David Oyelowo) in his prime, having just received the Nobel Peace Prize for his non-violent activism for racial equality, Selma tells the story of King’s next challenge: the denial of African Americans enrolling to vote in Alabama despite the passing of laws prohibiting segregation in public facilities. When negotiations with President Lyndon B. Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) fail to ensure enforcement of the anti-segregation laws, King travels to Selma, Alabama to lead a series of peaceful protest marches. But when the marches are met with extreme violence, as well as personal threats to his wife and children, Dr King is left to choose between his cause and the safety of his community.

The first thing that came to my mind upon finishing Selma was how much it reminded me of Lincoln. It is a film that not only tells us of a great man’s victory over bigotry and close-mindedness, but reminds us that said bigotry is still happening today. Not only towards African Americans, but other cultures and peoples around the world. Out of all the true story/biopics we’ve seen this Oscars season, Selma seems to be the one that is the most socially and culturally relevant. And it achieves this great impact through excellent performances and clever film-making.

The film provides a great insight into King himself. Oyelowo’s Dr King is passionate, inspiring and larger than life but also very much afraid. We see him rehearsing his many grand speeches and the arguments he has with his wife Coretta (Carmen Ejogo) about the risks to their personal safety as they pursue justice. Much like Lincoln before it, Selma shows us someone who we’ve always seen as a figure and reminds us he was a person. The rest of the cast were also excellent, creating such fleshed out characters in such limited amounts of individual screen time. I didn’t even recognise Oprah Winfrey until the credits rolled!

The decision to limit how graphic the violent scenes were was also a very affective one. For a film rife with beatings, they were all shown through sound and clever cuts rather than blood and gore. I felt every brutal punch and baton-hit; the foley artist really deserves a medal. It truly made the violence seem more real, a trait most important for the film’s message.

When reviewing American Sniper, I mentioned the controversy that this year’s Oscars nominations were not diverse enough, given most of the nominees are men and white. When I originally heard that argument I scoffed, because while I agree that there is a problem in the entertainment industry where female and/or racially diverse characters and filmmakers are not favoured, the idea of saying the Academy should think: “oh, we better nominate a black person because we haven’t got one in there yet,” offends me. Don’t do it for the sake of doing it, do it if they were among the best of the year. But having seen Selma, I would say that the lead actor, David Oyelowo, is among the best and it was an oversight to not include him but nominate Bradley Cooper’s Chris Kyle. Director Ava DuVernay should be up for director too, it really is a shame she isn’t.

While it may not be generating much Oscar buzz, outside of controversy surrounding its lack of nominations, Selma is very much a movie worth your time. It isn’t my pick for Best Picture, but it is an excellent example of a “true story” film being worth making. With strong performances, powerful storytelling and a great sense of cultural relevance, Selma is worthy of its nomination.

See you next time!

When Tom isn’t writing about cultural diversity in awards shows, he’s rambling about news and silly things with his co-hosts on the Unnatural Selection podcast. He will also be featuring in the Oscars coverage on The Popculturists next Thursday night.

This review could be really short, because while I am in two minds regarding Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper, I feel this two-minute trailer really captured everything I like about it:

Now Showing this week is American Sniper, directed by Clint Eastwood, and based upon the biography (true story, AGAIN) of Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle (played by Bradley Cooper), the man touted as the most lethal sniper in US history for his four tours in the Iraq war. The film follows Kyle’s experiences watching over his comrades through his rifle scope, as well as how these experiences affected him and his relationship with his family whenever he returned home. That’s really it in a nutshell.

See what I meant with the trailer? That section was so tense, pulse pounding and it so brilliantly encapsulated the uncertain elements of modern warfare. Granted, I’ve never fought in a war but I would be confident in saying real war situations are probably more like that and less like Call of Duty. These were the moments that American Sniper excelled at, the war scenes. The macho-ism, the comradery and the sheer stressfulness of their day to day battles were the film’s best points. These were just soldiers doing their jobs; it’s not their place to question the war they’re fighting but just to protect their own so they can live to fight another day.

Because of this, I can see where all the criticisms alleging the film is pro-war are coming from. Cooper’s Kyle is man suffering from a gigantic hero complex, stating “it’s the guys I could be saving” that haunts him, and he is just dripping with red-white-and-blue patriotism. The film even features him watching 9/11 happening and immediately wanting to go get ‘dem terrorists! He eventually ends up referring to Iraqis, not just the militants trying to kill him but the innocent civilians as well, as “savages”.

But I feel, with a little critical thinking, American Sniper is really all about what fighting wars costs, and whether you personally think it is worth it or not is completely up to you. Being led into a war-zone and told every “military aged” Iraqi left after evacuation was there to kill you would condition you to distrust them, to fear them, to hate them. The depiction of Kyle’s behaviour I feel says a lot about the affects of modern warfare beyond the political and more towards the personal, and raised interesting questions about the kinds of people needed to make an effective military.

I just wish the depth of questioning carried over into the scenes taking place in the US.

Everything in the sections involving Kyle’s home-life were just sub-par. The dialogue was wooden and rife with characters blandly stating how they feel, the relationship between Cooper and Sienna Miller (playing Kyle’s wife Taya) felt forced; it just undermined everything established during the combat sections. It took what could have been a great analysis of a modern soldier’s struggle in life down to just an average one. It really let the film down.

Wow, I guess this wasn’t a short one huh?

As I said in my intro, I’m in two minds when it comes to American Sniper. On the one hand I have an intense military story, featuring some brilliant moments of tension, excellent cinematography and the potential to ask some serious questions; and on the other hand I have a bland, poorly written couple drama breaking it up. What I’m left with is an ordinary film. The acting wasn’t bad but it wasn’t great either, same with the writing and everything else. With so much criticism surrounding the lack of diversity in this year’s Oscar nominations (a debate for another time), I would say that American Sniper is the film that should be bumped off the lists.

It is by no means the worst film I’ve ever seen, not by a long shot; but nothing about it deserves the prefix of “Best”.

See you next time!

Want to hear more of Tom taking shots at movies and other things? Hear him guest featuring on The Popculturists’ Oscars coverage live on 94.7 The Pulse on Thursday nights. Also checkout Unnatural Selection, the weekly-ish news/comedy podcast Tom co-hosts with two other handsome misfits.

Now Showing this week is The Theory of Everything, directed by James Marsh. The second male-British-genius biopic this Oscars season, The Theory of Everything focuses on the work of cosmologist Stephan Hawking while he struggled personally and professionally with motor neurone disease. While undertaking a PHD at Cambridge in the 1960s, Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) encounters three life changing events: the beginnings of his theories regarding black holes and their impacts on the creation of the universe, his diagnosis of motor neurone disease and, the most important of all, he met his future wife Jane (Felicity Jones). What follows is a very slow and deflating, yet quite inspiring, story where a man whose deck is stacked against him but he still manages to achieve such incredible things. And yet, in the end, all his achievements never could have been enough.

Let’s get something out of the way first. The most talked about aspect of this film is Redmayne’s performance as Professor Hawking and the praise he is getting for, as a recent-ish editorial in The Guardian puts it, “cripping up”. That editorial said it it is offensive to disabled viewers to see actors “faking their identities”, and compared it to the social norm that performing other races is offensive. Well, first off, faking identities is literally what acting is: you pretend to be other people, either fictitious or real. While I agree that an actor putting on “black face” is offensive, I think it is OK for actors to portray disabilities, mental illnesses, or any other kind of identity shaping attributes as long as they are accurately researched and handled with care. Changing the accuracy of a condition or cultural identity attribute for the sake of convenience or humour isn’t OK, that would be very offensive; but as long as it is uncompromisingly realistic then I have no problem with it.

Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Should any film about a Vietnam veteran only cast a real Vietnam veterans, else other veterans shout “he wasn’t there, he doesn’t understand what we go through everyday,”? And in the case of The Theory of Everything, how could you show the stages of the disease over the 20 odd years that the film takes place? How could you show Hawking before his diagnosis unless the actor is able to perform without the physical limitations of motor neurone disease? It just wouldn’t be feasible without faking it.

I think Redmayne’s praise and nomination is well deserved, as his performance is very impressive. Not only is his portrayal of a person living with motor neurone disease incredibly powerful, but his imitation of Hawking himself is stunning. As a young Hawking, Redmayne is almost indistinguishable from all the real photos I have seen of the man, right down to that goofy grin. And as an elder Hawking, he looks and behaves strikingly similar to the man we see today. He put himself through quite a transformation for the role, and it is clear this is why he has been nominated. He’s not my choice to win, but the man has no doubt earned his nomination.

Wow, that went on longer than I expected. Moving on, or else I could be here all day!

The Theory of Everything‘s high praise should not be all about Redmayne though; just as much should be given to his co-star Felicity Jones as Jane Hawking. Jane goes through a similar transition as her husband, as the responsibility of managing his care takes its toll on her. Much like Hawking, when you think back to how Jane looked and behaved at the film’s beginning compared to its end, you can see how large an arc the character went through, and Jones performed it with such subtlety and conviction. Their relationship felt legitimate, they made quite the leading pair.

The only aspects of the film that I felt worked against it was its pacing and its creative liberties. The film uses some pretty intense time jumps, skimming over some pretty important moments in Stephan and Jane’s life, and then lingers over some of the smaller ones in the middle. The film has a very definite lull in the middle act, before picking up again once Hawking’s iconic electronic voice comes into the story. As for creative liberties, there were just some sections where it felt like the film was going out of its way to tug at heart strings, either with tragedy or inspiration. There were examples of both in the one scene when an elder Hawking is giving a QnA session, in which he gets a standing ovation from a bunch of science majors (yeah right!) for saying “where there is life, there is hope” and also has a “man, I wish I could walk” fantasy in the middle. I’ve never met the man, but the film Hawking, at that stage of his life, didn’t strike me as someone still hung up on his condition.

The Theory of Everything is, so-far, the most “Oscar bait-ey” film this awards season that I’ve seen. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, some Oscar bait movies are still good films. Whether the Academy takes the bait is yet to be seen, but I suspect it will. But don’t count the movie out because of it, it isn’t the film’s fault the Academy is predictable.

See you next time!

Want to read/hear more of Tom rambling about social issues in cinema? No? Well that’s good, because he doesn’t do any of that on his website or as co-host on news/comedy podcast Unnatural Selection. And for a limited time, you can hear him talking movie-esque things on The Popculturists leading up to the Oscars, live Thursday nights or downloadable every Friday.

A fictional film! AT LAST. After a slate of screenings of, and trailers for, “true stories” at last we come to a completely original, FICTIONAL story. The curse is ended, and originality prevails! Rather than a historical, emotional roller-coaster, we now have a surreal tale of an aging Hollywood actor trying to throw off the shackles of his blockbuster days by pursuing his more artistic desires that also doubles as a clever parallel of the lead actor’s real life career-

…wait…YOU TRICKED ME!

Now Showing this week is Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu. Michael Keaton plays Riggan Thomson, a washed up actor known for his roles as the superhero Birdman in some early 90s blockbusters and is now trying to regain some sense of relevance by directing and starring in a Broadway play. Riggan hopes the production, which is an adaptation he wrote of one of his favourite author’s short stories, will lead him to be remembered for something truly brilliant and artistic rather than simply as “the guy who used to be Birdman.” The film begins the day before the first public preview of the play, and complications with a new actor being brought in, Riggan’s failed relationship with his family and a ruthless critic run the risk of tearing the production, and Riggan’s livelihood, asunder.

If you didn’t know already, Birdman‘s clever connection to reality is that Michael Keaton, much like Riggan, is an actor very well known for portraying Batman in the late 80s and early 90s before turning down further sequels and kind of disappearing into obscurity. Yes he’s appeared in bit parts now and then, ranging from appearances in The Simpsons to 30 Rock and most recently in the reboot of Robocop, but nothing tremendously noteworthy or leading-man-esque since his stints as the Dark Knight. Fast forward to now, and he is appearing in a very artsy, clever film that has thrown him into the spotlight and reignited his career, with an Oscar nomination for Best Actor as well as winning the Golden Globe in the same category. So while the character of Riggan is speaking out for typecast actors everywhere, he is also Keaton speaking for himself. Furthermore, the film contains a significant dialogue between artists and critics which I personally struggled with, given I’ve represented both sides of the argument, but was a joy to ponder.

But at the film’s core, Birdman is about artists suffering for their art, in a similar vein to Black Swan several years ago. Where Black Swan was about dancers, and the physical and emotional toll that industry brings, Birdman focuses on actors and all the different problems they can suffer from. Possibly my favourite aspect of Birdman, as an actor myself, was seeing each member of Riggan’s cast representing a different type of actor. There was Mike Shiner (Edward Norton), a talented actor whose arrogance and ego has completely ruined his ability to function outside of performing; Lesley (Naomi Watts), a woman so driven to become a star that she is constantly on the verge of breaking; and the actor Shiner is replacing, Ralph (Jeremy Shamos), who can’t perform powerful emotions as anything other than intense expressions. And lastly there is Riggan, who is killing himself, personally and professionally, for something that in all likelihood won’t be a success. It was both hilarious and nostalgic to see all these personalities clashing, and it is most certainly an extra layer of enjoyment for anyone who has worked in the performing arts.

In further comparisons to Black Swan, Birdman is very surreal. But unlike Black Swan, the surreal aspects feel very firmly established outside of the reality of the film. Riggan is constantly struggling against the berating internal monologue of Birdman himself, who also occasionally physically manifests to wreck havoc as Riggan’s immense anger. It was clear when the events unfolding on screen were the product of Riggan’s delusions, with the sole exception of the film’s conclusion. The film’s final moments felt a little bit off, as I struggled to believe the results of certain characters’ actions. No spoilers here, but suffice it to say that if you hate interpretive endings then you’re going to be pissed.

Returning to the surreal aspects for a moment, one of Birdman’s best attributes is its cinematography. The film is presented as a single take, using clever edit points to maintain the flow of the camera panning through the Broadway theatre and surrounding streets. Special effects were kept to a minimum, bar one instance that was AWESOME, and the whole thing felt very natural despite the onscreen weirdness. It must be seen on the big screen, it looks that good.

Before I wrap up, let’s talk about the performances. They are all, regardless of part size, stunning. Keaton shines as Riggan (probably because is kind of playing himself), showing us a very honest performance. His outburst scenes were one thing, but his ability to express the intention behind his character’s smaller moments was what really sold him for me. Edward Norton was deliciously arrogant as Shiner, from his first wanky rehearsal session to the chaos his “process” brings. As Riggan’s daughter Sam, Emma Stone gave a standout performance in one particular scene where she monologues all of Riggan’s problems. While there was a hint of exposition to it, her delivery made it seem more natural and, as a result, a much stronger punch in the guts. All three deserve their Oscar nominations, but as to their worthiness to win? I’ll need to see all the others first.

Birdman might just be my pick for Best Picture at the moment. Granted, I have not yet seen all the others so this may change, but where The Imitation Gamegave me a powerfully emotional story, The Grand Budapest Hotel an example of gorgeous cinematography, Birdman gave both along with an intellectual discussion I shall be ruminating on for many more days to come. It may be too weird a film for some, but I would highly recommend you check it out.

And so, the “based on a true story” trend continues. I don’t have a problem with this trend as such as there are plenty of amazing stories to be told from history. But when every film, every trailer and every poster use the phrase “true story” as its main selling point, then the phrase begins to lose meaning.

But I digress.

Now Showing this week is Unbroken, the second feature film to be direct by Angelina Jolie. Following the crash of his WWII bomber plane, American-Italian Olympic runner Louie Zamperini (Jack O’Connell), along with his two surviving crew members, was left stranded in a life raft in the middle of the ocean. They survived out there for some 45 days before being rescued by a Japanese navy vessel and taken to an even worse environment: a POW camp. Zamperini’s Olympian status draws the attention of the camp’s warden Sergeant Mutsuhiro Watanabe (Takamasa Ishihara), whose patriotism is matched only by his creative brutality. With the camp heavily guarded and the prisoners utterly defenseless, the only option Zamperini has to beat his captors is see it through the war intact; “unbroken” if you will.

…I see what they did there.

I feel it should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway, that when I take an issue with the narrative or characterisation of a “true story” film that doesn’t mean I don’t respect the hardships of the real person. I don’t know how much of a creative license was allowed for the film, but if Unbroken is anything to go by then the real Louie Zamperini must have been one heck of a strong willed individual. Lord knows I and many others would have cracked under the torturous conditions set upon him. That aspect of his story makes Unbroken a very compelling tale in its own right, but it isn’t enough to make it a brilliant film.

My biggest issue is the lack of characterisation outside of Zamperini himself. The film jumps chronologically between his survival story and his past as an Olympic athlete, giving context to the images and mottoes that he uses to push on through the slog of tyranny raining down upon him. Jack O’Connell throws himself into the role, and really sells the physical and emotional toll his journey puts on him. The guy’s got talent. But there was very little characterisation for the other characters in the film, especially for the film’s villain.

The ruthless Watanabe is very intimidating, don’t get me wrong, but he has pretty much no context to his behaviours outside of “you are all enemies of Japan!” He’s a psychopath for the sake of him being a psychopath rather than there being any reasoning behind some of his stranger actions. Perhaps no one really knows the motivations behind the real Watanabe, but that would be a great thing for the film to use a creative license to explore, to try and understand why this man was the way he was and perhaps give the audience a stronger adrenaline rush at the idea of defeating him.

While I expected this film to be a hit in awards season, but the only Oscars it is nominated for are in cinematography, sound mixing and sound editing. While I can’t think of anything standing out regarding the sound in the film, I must say the cinematography was great, particularly during the sections stranded at sea. Showing the vastness of the open ocean, but quickly creating claustrophobia in the shark infested waters was awesome to watch and was actually my favourite part of the film. If there was an award for “most realistic shark behaviour I’ve seen in a film in a while” then I would give it to this film.

Unbroken was a decent film in the end. Not a brilliant one as it lacked characterisation of its supporting players, and also used the “true story movie ends in text describing rest of life” cliche; which normally isn’t too much of a bad thing, but Unbroken dragged it out for a long time! With so many Oscars films to see at the moment, it shouldn’t be high on your list. But not one to scoff at if the session timing is right.

Sitting in the cinema the other day, escaping from the sweltering Melbourne summer heat, I had a realisation: there are a lot of movies coming out that are based on/inspired by true events. I mean A LOT. Not only was I sitting down the watch The Imitation Game (a true story), but earlier in the day I saw The Water Diviner (“inspired” by a true story), along with trailers for Unbroken, Selma and In the Heart of the Sea, all dramatisations of true stories. Does this feed into the calamity of Hollywood making nothing but remakes and reboots? Possibly, as they all run the risk of being stories that we would already know. But we still occasionally get completely fictitious gems like Interstellar, so I wouldn’t be too concerned.

It still catches me as a recent trend though. Anyway, moving on!

Now Showing this week is The Imitation Game, directed by Morten Tyldum. Set in the Academy’s favourite time period, the Second World War, The Imitation Game details the work of British mathematician Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) during a top secret mission to crack the Enigma Machine, the system used by the Nazis to encode all their communications. The task seemed impossible due to the millions upon millions of possible cipher combinations, all of which reset every day. But Turing had an idea beyond anyone’s comprehension: to design a machine that could process all the possibilities in mere minutes, much like the modern day computer.

I made a joke before about World War II being Hollywood’s most favoured time period because I thought it has been done so many times and that I’d seen every story there was to tell from that dark period of history. But The Imitation Game has shown me how wrong I am. I had no idea about the story of Alan Turing, whether or not he cracked Enigma and what effect he had on the war effort. And the first thing about this film that I will commend was how it made such a bland scenario so exciting. The idea of mathematicians sitting around trying to crack a code might not sound like riveting movie-going, but the stakes of the situation and excellent characterisation turns something so seemingly tedious into an adrenaline-pumping espionage thriller.

The writing is the true star of the film. Graham Moore’s adaptation of Andrew Hodges’ book “Alan Turing: The Enigma” is witty, clever, and insightful beyond its spy thriller outer layers. Code breaking certainly drives the plot of the film, but Turing’s work opens the doors to philosophical discussion on what artificial intelligence could tell us about ourselves, and it did so in a time where such discussion blew people’s minds. The writing truly shines through Turing himself, where it shows that his intellect made his brain operate on a completely different level to those around him and led to some of the films most poignant, and often hilarious, moments.

Coming in at a very close second for star of the film is Cumberbatch’s performance as Turing. Where he starts as an amusingly logical and arrogant genius, Cumberbatch’s performance led to a most harrowing portrayal as the film delved into Turing’s personal struggles with being a homosexual in a time where being homosexual was a crime. Cumberbatch proves himself once again as being a very versatile performer. After playing such powerful figures as Sherlock Holmes, Smaug the dragon and Star Trek Into Darkness‘ Khan, to see this brilliant yet timid character only further establishes the man’s talents.With a supporting cast full of some of Britain’s finest actors, from Keira Knightley to Charles Dance and Mark Strong, The Imitation Game is rife with great performances.

I’m going to just say it, The Imitation Game is one of the best films I have seen this past year. Much like 2012’s Argo, a declassified spy thriller story has made for an excellent piece of cinema. With Oscar nominations just around the corner, I really hope to see it feature strongly in the big five categories. I haven’t seen all the films slated for Oscar favour so I can’t call it the best of them all, but right now I’m rooting for it.The World War II setting will definitely give it a boost for Oscar attention though.